It wasnt so long ago that exhibitions in the "west" were being closed down because of nudity. I cant see why a museum in the emirates with no nudes would be an issue.
 

I think I am correct in saying that there is only one semi-nude or nude (my memory is hazt on the point) in the Frick Museum which, rightfully, has been called New Yorks favorite small museum. A wonderful place to see pictures despite the greater numbers who now attend, they have tried to maintain not only the mansion as Mr. Frick had it but his taste in art as well. Mr. Frick did not like nude picture. However, under their new policy of mounting small (but top of the line) loan exhibitions, we were privileged to see the portrait by Raphael of what is said to have been his last girl friend. A half millenium had dimmed her luster not one bit although some of the more sensitive viewer presumably had to veil their eyes since she showed a bit of breast. My own appraisal after frequent returns to the gallery in which she had been placed, was that she was not one bit daunted by the company of more than life size portrait, two each, by Gainsborough and Van Dyck. while their lustre was in no way dimmed by her presence. It was quite an experience to be surrounded by such beauty in paint and through them the skills of these artists.
I
All in all, I agree that there is no issue created by barring nudity where it offends religious sensibilities among peoples who have never accepted freedom of speech (the vast majority of UN members)as a basic principle of citizen interaction with each other and with the governing elite.I would not even support barring the picture at the recent Whitney biennial which bannered F--- Bush (my expurgation) even if it had read Clinton, Reagan,Kennedy or Eisenhower). It might not have been good art or good politics but it is protected speech. (Just who did the artists think would be shocked into attention at a Whitney show by the use of the "F" word as I believe it has come to be called.

irv